book of the month

what
is the 'anthropic principle'?

Is it Logical To
Presume Something as Complex as a Watch has Natural Origins? What About Something More Complex (such as a DNA molecule?)

A classic argument, developed in the eighteenth century by
British theologian William Paley, uses an analogy to postulate the
existence of a creator:

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot
against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might
possibly answer, that, for anything I know to the contrary, it lain
there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity
of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the
ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that
place; I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given,
that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there...The
watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some
time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who
formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who
comprehended its construction, and designed its use...Every indication
of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the
watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side
of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds
all computation.

In short, this argument persuasively displays the
inherent 'obviousness' we have when we come across something that seems
to have design and purpose. Upon discovering the watch, it is
logical to assume that it did not occur by accident, and that it was
placed there by a creator possessing intelligence. And, when
considering the incredible complexity of living organisms compared to a
watch, the argument is even more persuasive.

Arguments Against the Divine Watchmaker
(Adapted from The Creator and the Cosmos,
Hugh Ross)

1) Mere Appearance of Design

Philosopher David Hume argued that the Divine
Watchmaker analogy with living organisms is not close enough.
He concludes that a finite number of particles in perpetual random
motion for an infinite amount of time would eventually produce complex
systems that give only the appearance of design. But Hume
operated under assumptions that have drastically changed since his
rebuttal. Infinite time has been disputed with the evidence
of a 'Big Bang.' And the mechanisms of living organisms have
in fact proven to be considerably more complex than was assumed, and in
fact are very similar to engines in that they process energy to perform
work, much like the watch. Therefore, despite Hume's
argument, the analogy is correct.

2) Natural Selection

Darwin began the postulation that random mutations
and natural selection are capable of explaining the variations found in
all life forms (see more information in the discussion about
Evolution.) In effect, the Natural Selection argument says
"evolution (blind, unconscious, automatic chance) caused everything to
end up like it is today". Combining these thoughts with the
Paley argument coined the term "The Blind Watchmaker". But
this argument fails to address the origin of life. Even if we
made the huge leap of faith that evolution were true, it had
to start somewhere. there would be nothing to evolve
from. Unless we can address where life comes from, how can we
even discuss evolution? You can see why the evolution
scientists are desperately searching for a means to explain life
generating from non-life. See the article on evolution for
more detailed exposure of this radical theory.

3) Bad Designs

Some scientists and philosophers will even attempt
to dispute the Grand Designer theory by proving that there are bad
designs found in nature. (An incredibly arrogant statement,
seeing that no man has designed a life form of his own!) A
good example of such statement is from the famous atheist Stephen Jay
Gould, as he describes the panda 'thumb,' which to him appears to be a
clumsy adaptation of a wrist bone, not the work of a divine
designer. Of course these types of statements are as
subjective as they are arrogant, and are disputed by other scientists
of equally good reputation. Living organisms are so complex
it is impossible to understand them completely. And, like the
Evolutionary theory's rebuff, this argument has evolution at its core,
again ignoring that life had to begin somehow in order for it to
'evolve.'

In summary, the "Divine Watchmaker" is a valid analogy, lending us
further to consider a Creator for the Creation